Trust – who has it and who hasn’t? And why?

I have been reliably informed that there are very few trusted groups in our modern society, yet trust is what most people are looking for - other people they can trust, media they can trust and institutions they can trust.

I have also been reliably informed that the few that are trusted include small business, health, welfare and the farm sector. No surprise there. The welfare workers, health workers, farmers and small business people are found in community, at the grass roots. If people don’t trust them they either go out of business or are sent a very firm message from the community that they aren’t welcome.

In spite of all this Australia is in a great position. We have an economy the envy of the world, our wages are some of the highest in the world, conditions for workers is world class, our public service is rated third best on the planet, we are rated as a very happy nation on the happiness scale yet we have still lost trust in our institutions.

So why have big institutions lost our trust? This includes banks, unions, some big retailers, multi-nationals, some regulators, major and national sporting teams, key government agencies and even the tertiary education sector. In my opinion it is because they are not connected to community; they do not have a good line of communications to community. They are lacking a reliable source of intelligence, of information, of facts - from the grass roots.

Big government has a serious problem with making decisions. More and more often these decisions are based on text books and the opinion of a few not the many. It was not always like this, once there was a government organisation focused on micro economics that gathered information for the government of the day, information from all over Australia, from the smallest regional community to the major cities. It was the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES). It gathered intelligence on small labour markets which put together informed national policy and also informed communication strategies. The information collected by the CES helped give credibility to governments and policy makers; the information helped the community have faith and trust in the system. Then along came text book ideologues who practiced their dark arts of ‘control through disempowerment’ and the CES was dismantled and trust and faith in the system of government declined.

For many decades Australian unions held sway and were in the main trusted. They had lots of members and achieved many good things, around safety in particular. Then along came the ideologues. The unions stopped talking to the members and trust and faith disappeared along with the union members. Australia is fifth lowest in the OECD when it comes to trust in unions. Finland is the highest with 68% trust and Australia comes in just ahead of the mafia run unions in the USA with 25%. Why the difference? Because, I’m guessing, unions in Finland work with their members and community, unions in Australia work among themselves.

Then there are the banks. There is no doubt in my mind that the rot set in when they scrapped the local bank managers. For decades the local bank manager was seen as a stalwart of the community, an honest broker who would do what was right for his (rarely her) customers and community. These managers would report back to state HQs and national HQs on the state of the market, the feelings and beliefs of the community and the needs of customers. Senior bank management would see the early signs of worry or distrust and do what was necessary to rebuild confidence. But now we have no bank managers in the biggest banks and we have no trust or faith. Interestingly two of the smaller banks that people seem to trust, Bank of Queensland and Bendigo Bank, have local managers and as a result a greater connection to community. The banks now need to come up with a model where they have trusted representatives in the community. To be trusted they must live in that community, understand that community and be able to communicate to HQs and to the community just like they did in the old days.

Media is also going through great change. Modern societies have more sources of information than any society in history. So, what and whom do we trust? Which commentator, journalist, blogger, shock jock, news anchor, face book page, Instagram account, twitter feed, LinkedIN connection do we trust? How do we decide whom or what to trust? Is the rise of ‘fake facts’ due to the proliferation of so many information channels? If a person doesn’t want to believe certain facts they can, it seems, find the facts they want to believe somewhere else.

Multi-national corporations are a mixed bag. More and more of them are pursuing legitimacy and are confronting tax and supplier payment issues. As always, it’s the minority that give the rest a bad name. The payment regime of some big businesses and multi-nationals is a crime. Nestle for example has pushed the payment time for suppliers out to 120 days. How does a business survive without money, how does a small business manage cash flow? But Nestle understands that and so offer to lend money to their suppliers until they, Nestle, pay their supplier. But Nestle claim they are good corporate citizens because they will offer low interest rates on that loan. Nestle think that it is a legitimate behaviour to lend someone the money that Nestle owes them at a profit for Nestle. This is nothing but extortion. No wonder we lose faith and have little trust with behaviours like this.

Most Australian regulators are world class, not perfect (who can be?) but still world class. When a regulator’s reputation is tarnished the reason will more often than not be rooted home to either the poor and inappropriate attitude of an official in that regulator or poorly designed process and communications. There is also on the other side of the argument the ‘haters’ that exist in the business and general community. There aren’t many, but they take great delight in attacking and vilifying regulators and regulations and pretty much everything to do with government.

To regain trust big organisations need to be seen and be active in communities where possible. The representative must be a participant in the community. Otherwise they will be seen as observers and the information they collect will be tainted by a lack of relevance. Real intelligence is gathered by participants who are known and trusted. Real information comes through process and participation not just by asking questions.

Another contributor to the lack of trust has been the centralisation of decision making on everything to do with the economy. We have people in central places making decisions on behalf of Geelong or Dubbo or some other small community even though they might have never visited the place nor understand its particular needs. This has to stop. Perhaps these autocrats do know better but if they get it wrong it isn’t their community or their family that suffers. We all know they at times do get it wrong (think Pink Batts). In these times of constant change, it is now the role of these people to get their knowledge out to the people in the community. Get more information and resources to those who have the cash to invest and who will garner the benefits or reap the bitter grapes of failure.

We need to confront this lack of trust. This lack of faith. This lack of confidence. Before it becomes a lack of hope.